Where the evidence shows that the dominant purpose of the appellant organization is to create a business market for local farmers, the dominant purpose is commercial, not charitable, and accordingly, the appellant is not a charitable organization for real estate tax exemption purposes.

Where an Everett landowner did not establish comparability between his purportedly comparable properties and the subject property, did not properly analyze or use relevant assessment data in his comparable-assessment analysis, did not introduce or analyze any comparable-sales information and did not attempt to value the subject income-producing property using an income-capitalization approach, the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving that the assessment exceeded the subject property’s fair cash value for fiscal year 2010.

Where the Commissioner of Revenue refused to grant an abatement of corporate excise, interest and penalties, the appellant failed to prove any valid business purposes or economic effects for the supposed transfers of centralized business operations to a subsidiary during any of the tax years at issue.

Where the owner of real property in Wilmington has requested a real estate tax abatement, the owner has failed to meet his burden of proving that the assessed value was higher than the property’s fair market value for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, so the request for an abatement must be denied.

Where the appellant’s claim that he had timely completed and returned §38D requests for fiscal year 2011 to the Milford assessors was unsubstantiated and not credible, the assessors’ motion to dismiss his appeal must be allowed.

Where the city of Boston assessed real estate taxes on South Station, the subject property — leased by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to a for-profit limited liability company — is exempt from taxation.